Earlier this month, Amherst College Professor Austin Sarat criticized Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for asking pointed questions about death row inmate Richard Glossip’s claim that his 2004 murder conviction should be overturned. After all, Oklahoma’s new attorney general, Gentner Drummond, supports Glossip’s claim that trial prosecutors withheld evidence.

However, this popular narrative is a manufactured and bogus claim. Prosecutors never withheld evidence. The real lesson of the case is that there is a danger that prosecutors will confess to imaginary “mistakes” and sometimes even throw cases on purpose.

in 1988A jury in Oklahoma found Glossip guilty of recruiting his friend Justin Sneed to kill Barry Van Treese. After rejecting ineffective assistance of counsel, the jury convicted Glossip again in 2004. He was sentenced to death again.

After nearly two decades of appeals, Glossip argues that trial prosecutors withheld evidence that Sneed was taking lithium for a mental disorder under the direction of a psychiatrist; This is evidence his lawyers could potentially use to implicate Sneed as a witness.

Glossip’s argument based on just four words in a prosecutor’s notes during Sneed’s pretrial interview. The words are: “In lithium?” And “Dr. Trumpet?”

Drummond agreed with Glossip, concluding that those four words meant the prosecutor knew about Sneed’s possible psychiatric prescription. But this ignores the important context surrounding these few words. In reality, the prosecutor was merely writing down what Sneed said when describing his interrogation by defense investigators. Hence the two question marks contained in the notes and the information regarding the defense team.

Surprisingly, Drummond never directly asked the prosecutor what his notes meant. Even more surprising was that Drummond did not disclose to the Supreme Court the other prosecutor’s notes of the same interview.

These notes directly record Sneed describing being “visited by 2 women who said they represented Glossip (they were angry).” Therefore, as I explained in my article friendly summary It is not possible for prosecutors’ notes on behalf of the Van Treese family to reflect information withheld from the defense. Instead, the notes show they wrote down information about things the defense team asked Sneed about.

In a letter Both prosecutors accompanying my brief specifically state that their notes reflect only that Sneed was concerned with information the defense already had. Contrary to Sarat’s claim that prosecutors “hid evidence” from the defense, prosecutors only wrote down evidence the defense already had.

The Glossip case reflects an unfortunate trend. Other prosecutors have recently admitted to fictitious or misleading “mistakes.” Earlier this year, the Third Circuit unanimously rejected Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner admits error in death penalty case. The chamber upheld a court decision sanctioning the Office of the Prosecutor for failing to fully investigate the alleged error and for misrepresenting that the office had properly notified the victim’s family of what was happening.

Another example comes from a death penalty case in Texas, where a new Travis County prosecutor was elected on an anti-death penalty platform. Just a few days later, the prosecutor’s office admitted error in sentencing Areli Escobar to death for the rape and murder of her 17-year-old neighbor, Bianca Maldonado. The importance of that local prosecutor dubious acceptance Once decided, Glossip’s case remains before the Supreme Court for decision.

A final example comes from Los Angeles, where George Gascón was elected district attorney with the help of significant campaign money. He then began reversing capital decisions in the county. to systematically compromise error regardless of the facts of the particular situation. Gascón is running for re-election in November.

What motivates prosecutors to “dive in” in these cases is that, at least in their jurisdiction, it is good politics. But dragging victims’ families into false lawsuits based on bogus mistakes is cruel. And the biggest loss is the public’s trust in the criminal justice system. The public sees headlines about prosecutors admitting mistakes and wrongly assumes that the system cannot be trusted to reach accurate conclusions.

Fortunately, there is at least a partial resolution available in Glossip and other cases subject to judicial review. US Supreme Court held for a long time “It is uniform practice for this court to conduct its own review of the record in all cases in which the Federal Government or a State admits to a wrongful conviction.” Far from being reprehensible, Judges Thomas and Alito took seriously their obligation to review the facts when they asked difficult questions.

The Supreme Court, and courts more broadly across the country, should closely scrutinize prosecutors’ admissions of “error” to make sure they are accurate. And in the Glossip case, where the alleged error was fabricated, the court must confirm Glossip’s sentence. The victim’s family deserves some small measure of closure 10,139 days after the murder of Barry Van Treese.

Paul Cassell is a former federal judge and professor of criminal law at the University of Utah SJ Quinney School of Law. Representing the Van Treese family pro bono in the Glossip case.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Head to The Hill for the latest news, weather, sports and streaming video.